This is legit dumb. Caffeine is a brain stimulant. It doesn't make you cycle or run faster.

I've taken tons of pre-workouts over time and I'd never take one before cycling on an ironman.

The increments in the cokes on the course an in gels aren't even remotely close to the limit the body can sustain. Telling people they can't drink coffee in the morning is beyond dumb.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Nothing new here - I'm surprised you bought the clickbait, Neal.

Caffeine has been on the monitoring list for many years - probably since they removed it from the prohibited list. As the amount from which you gain the most coincide with what you can get through normal food I will say they are very unlikely to change anything.

Also, it's sad that even an outlet like Washington Post gets facts on this stuff wrong. I'm very sure it's not new to the monitoring list as they write, and it also sounds like they are sure to add it to the prohibited list just because it's on the monitoring list, which is untrue (they haven't added it to the 2018 prohibited list):

"WADA’s study will continue through September, at which point the agency will issue a three-month notice that the substance will be added to the Prohibited List the following year."

The genotype thing was interesting. 13.7% increase in 10K time for CC. That's on the order of two minutes. Like all day.

That'd be in the ballpark of *5km* for someone doing, say, an hour record attempt. Sweet jesus I hope that I'm not CC and/or that study is flawed given my like 30 years of caffeine consumption.

Caffeine has been on the monitoring list since 2009.
https://www.bicycling.com/...to-wadas-banned-list

What is new is that caffeine may only help the performance of some people.

Hello trail and All,

First of all coffee is big business and we can expect some response from the Coffee Institute Laboratories (if there is such a thing) to water down any impact on coffee sales from this data.

Look at the glass as half full ... not half empty. Why guess? .... get the test $99 .... if you are a CC it will provide you an opportunity for a very inexpensive performance boost. (If you were buying coffee before the test ... when you quit that will pay for for the test very quickly)

The good news for you if you are a CC .... you stand to gain the most of any group .... as the caffeine was diminishing your performance ... ( note "diminished performance at 4 mg/kg in those with the CC genotype.") ..... a nice performance boost by just eliminating caffeine from your diet ..... in addition to other health benefits.

And if WADA moves caffeine from the Monitoring List to the Prohibited List you will be ready.

(my wife gets headaches if she does not get her morning caffeine ..... and I do not think I am going to persuade her otherwise)



Good Luck!

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Which one are you Neal??

I remember a long time ago some tests on mice with caffeine. As I recall they made them swim until complete exhaustion(maybe death?). The hopped up group on caffeine lasted around 15% longer as I recall. Of course not a human study, but seems like we have been drinking the stuff for a very long time, and for the past 100 years you can add some sodas to the mix, so should have a very good sample to draw conclusions from.

Not sure I buy anyone gets 13+% from it though, that would be crazy if true. I wonder if there are any tell tale signs if you are on one side of the spectrum or the other..

I agree. I just ordered a test. Not the one you listed, but another one that gives you the results for about 40 genes (including CYP1A2) for only about double the cost. (fitnessgenes.com)

I'm skeptical too. However I was a test subject in a beta-alanine test, and beta-alanine absolutely *destroyed* my time trial performance. I knew something was way off about 3 minutes in, so after the test results were published I asked if the blindness could be lifted, and, indeed, my performance went way south after being administered beta-alanine.

Is being/having CYP1A2 the same as being CC in the other study? I’d also like to ensure caffeine isn’t inhibiting my performance, though I’d probably have figured it out by now if it were.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

From the site I mentioned above: https://fitnessgenes.com/...s-we-analyze/cyp1a2/

Hello monty and All,

I don't know which one I am.

I just learned about this caffeine information so I will have to get a test .... I like trail's deal ... more up front cost but lots more data .... maybe the additonal data will be useful downstream.

Google says:

"Studies show that people who drink coffee regularly may have an 11% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than non-drinkers, thanks to ingredients in coffee that can affect levels of hormones involved in metabolism. ... Coffee may even help you live longer.May 5, 2017"

Now that could be good news for those that have that genetic type .... or maybe it is hokum?

I do not drink regular coffee .... decafe once in a great while .... real coffee makes my hands shake and hair stand on end and I cannot sleep ..... Long ago when I was young .... on long transpacific flights I would drink regular coffee (a lot of it) and feel like a bird flew in my mouth the next day .... so I quit and drank a lot of water instead and felt much better.

I usually eat a small square of Trader Joe's dark chocolate each day .... have to check .... OK a cup of coffee is about 145 mg caffeine and square of chocolate is 8 mg .... so not much .... but after I get tested I will decide about quitting .... maybe the chocolate is a performance boost?

This makes me wonder about other gene/nutrition relationships for health related best practices.

I have seen marketing for gene testing related to nutrition but take it with a grain of salt as I do not know much about it.

I have become comfortable eating the food I like but if there was evidence that changing something would be a better practice I might try it ...... my mom lived to 99 on our current diet (lots of fresh vegetables and fruits, not much processed food, meat, fish, milk, and cereal and a bit of beer and wine .... and some pie ..... and some tiramisu .... and some ice cream ..... and cheese .....) OK, I am getting hungry ....

https://www.pathway.com/fit-products/

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I'm pretty sure that BA tanks my performance as well.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Beta-Alanine is pretty much a worthless ingredient in supplements, it's just a filler, sounds good but does nothing for most people.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

They're going to have to add sports drinks, carbohydrates, and, come to think of it, water to the monitoring list. I've seen numerous studies that appear to indicate those things increase performance in a variety of sports.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

Reading the acknowledgement in the paper you linked:
"This study was funded by the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research, Nutrigenomix Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, and Mitacs."
"A.E-S. is the Founder and holds shares in Nutrigenomix Inc. and N.G. serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Nutrigenomix Inc."

There might be nothing wrong with their research, but with so much conflict of interest I would look elsewhere for confirmation.

Did you just get the basic test or the one that comes with a 4/8/12 week plan? I'm leaning towards the former, on the basis that I much prefer understanding the data and concepts and then figuring out my own plan rather than following one that somebody has prescribed.

In my case it was much worse than worthless....

I got the 4-week. I'm more inclined to roll my own like you, but was curious to see what they come up with as part of the tutorial on understanding (or calling BS) what they're claiming.

Would be very interested in how useful you find it, if you get a chance to come back here and write about it. Been toying with the idea of either a DNA test and/or gut microbiome analysis for a while. As much for health reasons as for sporting performance. Part of me keeps insisting it's all snake oil, and the knowledge that my wife would certainly think that has been enough to stop me from pulling the trigger so far!

Interesting - I am CYP1A2 type CC and also an avid fan of caffeine - maybe I should cut it out and see how things go!

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |

My gut feeling is that this is a lot like eat for your blood type. There are going to be so many outliers going against the grain of what they say the results should be, that the information in the end really is not that useful. I'm sure there are whole pockets of people that have the bad caffeine gene, yet they have a super long history of them and their ancestors drinking it, and to good effects. I think the body will adapt over time to certain things and make them good, where in other people they could be bad or poison.

It is that way with food, so dont see why it would be different with caffeine. I think the results will be like predicting your heart rate, a lot of people will fall right into the formula 220- your age, but just about as many will not. I do like the direction the testing is going though, just not really there yet. DNA is going to be a great prediction of a lot of things, but things like what one eats or drinks on a daily basis is going to be tough to pin down. Perhaps it will be a combination of a dozen different ones that gets to real accuracy..

Sources?

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

While researching this caffeine issue I ran into this 2017 meta-study of four supplements, one of which was beta-alanine (7 beta-alanine studies included): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC5422435/

It concluded nitrate and beta-alanine did not show significant effects in trained athletes. Caffeine and bicarbonate showed some effects.

Edit: This is for "intense" (<8 minute) performance. Not claiming it's the be-all, end-all study. Just pointing it out since it caught my eye.

Yeah, I'll definitely report back with how the process went, what the results look like, and if anything looks like it might be worthwhile.

I ordered a 23 and me kit yesterday after reading this. A bunch of my family has done it and I have been procrastinating it forever. It also gives this result with the ‘health’ option.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

windschatten wrote:

People here are like flies on honey regarding the performance benefits of coffee.

Did you read the thread? (potential) Performance detriment of coffee is mostly what this thread is about.



You are an inspiration.



Yeah, I'm sure Big Coffee, Big Pharma, and Big Supplement are clamoring for "trail's" CYP1A2 results. Big bidding war brewing. I'm not so much worried about being inundated with ads for the latest ethically-sourced Colombian dark roast and mid-race pep pill, but how I'm going to be stripped of all the profit I could make by selling the information myself.

Hey trail- How many days/weeks were you on BA?

I feel I am one of those where it is a detriment. My adrenals must be shot. I love the taste of coffee

I have deep experience with both DNA test data (23andMe) and also gut microbiome data from Ubiome. I would highly recommend getting a 23andMe test, downloading the raw data file when your results are in, and connecting your file to GENOtation (http://genotation.stanford.edu/). There are numerous free sports, lifestyle, health reports that will be very educational. There are great explanations and references in Genotation if you want to dive deeper. I think it's great to learn more about yourself.

Ubiome is interesting, but the science is still emerging and it is difficult to find any actionable benefit (right now). It is interesting when I read of a certain study that describes findings of groups of people for particular bacteria(s) and looking to see if your sample(s) have that present and in what amount. It may be more beneficial if you have a difficult gut to see what is in there and see if you can modify it with diet changes and if you notice your symptoms changing.

Thanks. Can you get actionable results from the Stanford website? I had a look at the sample reports from 23andme and it was all stuff like people with your DNA tend to weigh less if they don't eat red meat, don't eat fast food, sleep for 8 hours and exercise regularly. Which doesn't tell me much that I don't already know!

I guess it depends on what you consider actionable and what your specific results yield. For instance, knowing your genetic predisposition to Vit D metabolism could be actionable if you didn't know it already through careful tracking of blood test results. As it turns out, some low metabolizers just need more Vit D to push them into normal ranges. Getting Vit D right can yield high gains in health and fitness. These and other tests could explain what you already may know (for instance if you have the "sprinter" gene or not), or they can shed more insight on areas you should dive deeper within if you haven't figured them out optimally through your experience. BTW, some of the research around the sprinter gene ACTN3 doesn't just revolve around speed of contraction, but muscle, tendon and ligament structure, damage and recovery which could yield actionable insights on what type of training you may adapt to better than others.

Hello windschatten and All,


Wind shadow is a zone of lower wind speed on the leeward side ( lee ) of a flow obstacle. The historical use of the wind shadow consists in the plant of rows of trees or hedgerows in the field corridor , where the slipstream - in six- to seven-fold length of the tree height - prevents erosion . In a broader sense, slipstreams are also used in calm conditions to denote the zone behind a moving object. The slipstream behind moving objects plays an important role in various sports. In a moving object with additional crosswind the slipstream is according to the vectorial addition of the wind speeds (see: parallelogram of forces) obliquely behind the object.



Thanks for posting ... interesting article. Interesting comments following the article too.

One of our family members is in the biomedical business working for a large company .. (Some great cures are in the pipeline if they test OK.)

At dinner the other night the same topic came up .... should you keep your DNA secret? And how can this be accomplished?

Not by patent ... From Wiki ....

"US Supreme Court Strikes Down Gene Patents but Allows Patenting of Synthetic DNA. NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – The US Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that human genes are not patentable, but synthetic DNA, or cDNA, is patent eligible because it does not occur naturally.Jun 13, 2013"

For me, the ship has sailed, as I have had medical tests while in the USMC that are probably on file, 6 month physicals and drug tests while working for an airline that are in the database, medical tests in other countries when traveling and sick, and my wife has been doing genealogy for a long time and comparing our DNA with others on Ancestry, 23 and Me, and probably other DNA companies too.

I plan to continue DNA testing to learn as much as possible about what makes my body tick .... if somebody profits from my information .... so be it .... perhaps the information will help cure some physical maladies for other humans.

Also for our triathlon sport (for pros) with biological passports, out of season location reporting with unannounced urine and blood tests, and for age groupers blood or urine tests at races, 'all of our precious bodily fluids' are becoming public record.

General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. [Film Dr. Strangelove]



https://www.theguardian.com/...ncer-research-genome

Excerpt:

"The astonishing story of Henrietta Lacks, who died of cancer in 1951 but whose still living cells are now the basis for much medical research, has captivated America for the past two years – and there is no sign of the debate, or its controversies, abating.

As revealed in the bestselling 2011 book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, this is a tale of a poor black tobacco farmer who never consented to having her tissues taken but whose cancer cells have proved so important they have formed the foundation for work leading to two Nobel prizes.

Yet Lacks's family never knew about it – even as the cells were used around the world in research, or when they themselves were asked for blood samples two decades later. The book described the indignity of the family's ordeal even as giant corporations profited hugely from Lacks's cells – known as HeLa in medical parlance. Her children, again without their knowledge, had their medical records studied and even published. It was a story of the complex intersection of medicine, race and profit that seemed to have a happy ending as the book, written by Rebecca Skloot, became a bestseller and Lacks's contribution to medical science was recognized."

"It speaks very widely to genetic privacy," Kroll said. After all, Kroll argued, if researchers were still blithe enough to publish a genome as well known as a HeLa cell, then they might be even less bothered by people whose identities are – now – less famous. "The whole Henrietta Lacks case has been a blessing in disguise. Often mistakes can lead to advances and correcting behaviour," said Kroll."

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

The study I was on gave me a single acute dose, presumably large though I don't know the details. I know that runs counter to current practice of "loading" beta-alanine. But I don't do use it as a supplement.

Yeah exactly where I was headed with that. BA shouldn't have any effect unless you load it every day for at least 4 weeks, so one acute dose shouldn't do anything (not saying it didn't, just that it's not supposed to). In addition, it's not supposed to do much for races like outdoor time trials. Research shows an effect for efforts of 1-10 minutes, and maybe sprints at the end of a long race. It's probably good for things like pursuit, and maybe the surges in road/crit racing.

Pretty sure it's the opposite: CC genotypes (europeans, basically) drink more coffee, but it's been a while since I looked into it and I don't feel like verifying that so treat it with a grain of salt.

Spending $99 for genotyping at a single locus is absurd. If you want to know your CYP1A2 (or any other gene of interest) genotype, you can pay $99 for genome-wide coverage through 23andme. Ignore the report, download your raw data, and upload to Promethease for another $5. You now have access to look at your genotype at any of 640,000 SNPs (see my example below for rs762551).

Edit: It appears 23andme has a newer feature where you can search through raw data based on gene name or SNP ID, so you don't have to go through Promethease. But I'd still highly recommend Promethease if you're interested at all in looking more through your raw data because it integrates with SNPedia to give way more information about frequency in the population, published literature, etc.

Hello windschatten and All,

Looks like larger genetic databases are already under construction:

http://www.sciencemag.org/...first-pilot-projects

Excerpt:

"President Obama’s huge 1-million-person long-term health study is getting started. Today, the White House and National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced several pilot projects, including one to work out how to recruit hundreds of thousands of volunteers online. A Google company, Verily, will offer technical help.

Obama announced the cohort study just over a year ago as part of his Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI). Today, he will attend a White House summit with 170 participants to promote the PMI, which attempts to tailor medical treatments to individuals. The cohort program is the largest piece of the PMI: A 1-million-volunteer health study that will probe the interplay among genetics, lifestyle factors, and health.

Vanderbilt University in Nashville has won an award to perform a pilot study on how to recruit about one-third of the participants directly—anybody will be able to “raise their hands,” said NIH Director Francis Collins in a call with reporters. The university will work out how to engage participants with a website and a phone line for signing up. Verily, the former Google Life Sciences (renamed in December 2015), in Mountain View, California, will advise the project."

and
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27903831


Excerpts:
"Iceland's record of low immigration and its genealogical records going back 1,000 years make it a paradise for geneticists. A third or more of the population has already donated a DNA sample - but a new push to increase that figure is meeting some resistance.

"No!" says Alda Sigmundsdottir, raising her voice and waving her arms around emphatically.

"I will not be emotionally blackmailed into giving my DNA - it's my own private and personal information and I am not going to give it to anybody!"

Icelandic writer and journalist Alda and I are sitting in my hotel room in Reykjavik, talking about her latest blog in which she describes the attempt of the country's leading genetics company deCODE to recruit volunteers to give DNA samples. The company already has over a third of Icelanders in its database but now it wants to double its count.

Earlier this summer, it sent out swab packs in the post with information informing households that couriers would be knocking on doors in the near future to collect the samples from willing participants."

...........................
"On my way back from deCODE, I chat to people lunching at the university cafeteria and ask if they have given a DNA sample to deCODE. Almost all of them have done so, and shrug when I ask them if they had concerns about privacy.

One man in his mid-40s is emotional as he replies to me and his soup-spoon trembles as he talks.

"I have a family member with a genetic condition who has suffered a lot," he tells me quietly. He meets my gaze.

"Why should he suffer a lot if we know we have information that can help him? What is it to do with privacy?"

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Hello grassy and All,

Thanks for that info .... Unless I find a better deal I will give your advice at try.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Right, misinterpretation of genetic data without a real understanding of what it means is a huge problem in the general population. Part of this is how the "reports" from 23andme etc are advertised - "you have this genotype so you should eat this diet!" Which is really satisfying for a lot of people to feel like they have this understanding, but not at all representative of the complete picture.

What people need to really understand is that most traits are highly complex - polygenic (influenced by many genes) in nature, with strong environmental effects. Many of the genes that have been identified from large genome wide associations studies only explain a small fraction of the heritable phenotypic variance, and only a portion of the variance is even heritable.

Take ACTN3 for example - this is the most well studied gene that has come out of genome wide association studies looking at elite sprinting performance. According to the literature, the C;C variant is more highly represented in elite sprinters compared to the T;T variant, which codes for nonsense mutation. What you'll read about ACTN3 is that C;C at C;T individuals are "sprinter" types whereas T;T individuals are "endurance" types. People will check out their ACTN3 genotype, see they have a "C" allele, and think "dang, I should be sprinting instead of doing this long distance stuff!".

This is a total overreaching conclusion, given that ACTN3 has only a very small effect size that's been identified in a small subset of the population (elites). Almost 80% of Europeans have a C allele ("sprinter") allele - it's not some special genetic gift. While there certainly in a genetic pre-disposition for sprinting, ACTN3 is just a small part of the much larger picture, much of which has yet to be discovered. But it's the only one we've characterized well so it gets touted around as the "sprinting gene." In reality, environmental effects (think: lifestyle and training) way outweigh the effects of this single gene.

Thanks for the pointer to Premethease. I was having trouble understanding the 23&Me Caffeine report, because it talks about C & T variants rather than C & A, and their descriptions of the C variant sounded more like the A variant in the links described further up in this thread. The 23&Me report lists me as type C:C (as opposed to C:T or T:T), but when I imported the data into Premethease it lists me as A:A.

That's because the 23andme report is based on different markers than the literature referenced above (rs4410790 vs. rs762551). Both are in CYP1A2 but they are in different locations within the gene.

Keep in mind the studies using caffeine usually use 3-4mg/kg. That's a lot of caffeine, 2-3 times the amount of typical cup of coffee. I'm a CC, but before I knew this, I knew too much coffee makes me jittery and nauseous. This would not be the way I'd want to feel before/during a race. 1 cup of coffee however makes me feel fantastic, so I've dialled in what feels right for me. After learning that I'm CC, I think it just confirms what I already knew through experience. So, I don't think a CC withdrawing completely from 1 typical cup of coffee for better performance is the correct conclusion. Rather, a CC that takes too much caffeine (4mg/kg) will benefit from NOT taking that much (because they cannot metabolize it quick enough), whereas different genotypes will benefit from these amounts (because they metabolize faster).

What you say makes a lot of sense, Russ. And it makes me think the DNA tests are probably a waste of money.

I had a caffeine withdrawal headache all day yesterday. It was brutal!

I was so happy to hop out of bed this morning and have a cup of coffee. I celebrated by running 5 instead of 3. Even assuming I'm CC, there is a place in my life for just the right amount of caffeine.

That's plausible, but a bit of an n=1 leap of faith since nothing in the abstract can really confirm the theory that it was a subjective feeling of "jitteriness" that resulted in the decreased performance. We don't even know if any of the CC subjects felt jittery at all. The abstract doesn't report what happened to the CC's at 2mg/kg. I'd like to read the study, but don't want to pay the $59, which seems a bit steep for a single article.

OK, I sucked it up and paid $59. Kind of interesting.

There was no difference at 2mg/kg for the CC's (vs. either 4mg/kg or 0).

In terms of facts, the CC's at 4mg/kg had a 2% decrease in heartrate vs. placebo and 2mg/kg. They also had a non-significant increase in RPE (vs. a significant reduction in RPE for those with improved performance).

There was no questionnaire on subjective feelings, unfortunately, so we can't say anything about jitteriness.

However, the pre-study questionnaire showed no significant difference between AA, AC, and CC in either dietary caffeine consumption or performance-motivated caffeine consumption. So no type appears to prefer caffeine innately.

The study did conjecture on mechanisms for the impaired performance of the CC's. The conjecture was based around a theory of vasoconstriction and therefore decreased myocardial bloodflow. This is consistent with the other data showing increased risk for myocardial infarction for CC's who ingest caffeine.

Far from proof. And the lack of mention of a subjective feeling of "jitteriness" doesn't disprove that theory.

But I'm not disappointed that I ordered the testing to see which type I am.

Frankly who cares what happened generally to the participants of the study! What is most important to you is not generalized knowledge but specific knowledge on yourself. Everyone is different and that's why testing on yourself is the most relevant experiment right?

Right, testing on yourself is everything for individual performance. That's why I ordered the DNA test, so I establish the basic parameters of testing on myself.

But studies like this are still invaluable. How could I possibly know what about myself to study if someone hadn't attempted it, and established statistical significance.

Hello trail and All,

Thanks for your good efforts (and noting them to us) .... you are moving much faster than me ......

I am still contacting Ancestry to get my previous DNA information (from a year or so ago) to see if that is adequate for the caffeine information ... if that doesn't work I will buy a new test.

If you get any further insights please let us know and when I get my information I will do the same .... kind of fun.

Way to go!!

MIT lists 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2018:

https://www.technologyreview.com/...1b-943e-78590dbcbe42



Genetic Fortune-Telling
Excerpt:

"One day, babies will get DNA report cards at birth. These reports will offer predictions about their chances of suffering a heart attack or cancer, of getting hooked on tobacco, and of being smarter than average.

Genetic Fortune Telling

• BreakthroughScientists can now use your genome to predict your chances of getting heart disease or breast cancer, and even your IQ.
• Why It MattersDNA-based predictions could be the next great public health advance, but they will increase the risks of genetic discrimination.
• Key PlayersHelix; 23andMe; Myriad Genetics; UK Biobank; Broad Institute
• AvailabilityNow

The science making these report cards possible has suddenly arrived, thanks to huge genetic studies—some involving more than a million people.

It turns out that most common diseases and many behaviors and traits, including intelligence, are a result of not one or a few genes but many acting in concert. Using the data from large ongoing genetic studies, scientists are creating what they call “polygenic risk scores.”

Though the new DNA tests offer probabilities, not diagnoses, they could greatly benefit medicine. For example, if women at high risk for breast cancer got more mammograms and those at low risk got fewer, those exams might catch more real cancers and set off fewer false alarms."

https://www.technologyreview.com/...a-lot-more-accurate/

Excerpt:

"When Amit Khera explains how he predicts disease, the young cardiologist’s hands touch the air, arranging imaginary columns of people: 30,000 who have suffered heart attacks here, 100,000 healthy controls there.

There’s never been data available on as many people’s genes as there is today. And that wealth of information is allowing researchers to guess at any person’s chance of getting common diseases like diabetes, arthritis, clogged arteries, and depression.

Doctors already test for rare, deadly mutations in individual genes. Think of the BRCA breast cancer gene. Or the one-letter mutation that causes sickle-cell anemia. But such one-to-one connections between a mutation and a disease—“the gene for X”—aren’t seen in most common ailments. Instead, these have complex causes, which until recently have remained elusive.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

It's somewhat fascinating that substances with known addictive properties like caffeine are not regulated the way others are and that we have permitted businesses to build empires around them. I do like my morning coffee, however!

I got my "MyFitnessGenes" results back. Pretty interesting. I'm AC for CYP1A2, so avoided the worst-case for caffeine (according to the article in this thread). Phew. I can keep drinking coffee.

I haven't fully digested the rest of them, but my testosterone-associated genes were interesting. I scored "low circulating testosterone risk" on all 3 of them. Which explains why my measured T results (from my InsideTracker experiment) were all way low. That was actually kind of encouraging. I'd thought that the clinical tests on T indicated there might be something wrong with me, or that I'm chronically overtrained. But it sounds like maybe it's just who I am.

On the plus side I scored "high" on nearly every aerobic capacity-related gene. Overall the results kind of present me as exactly who I think I am. Tall, skinny endurance dude. Go figure.

I wonder if it has to do anything with red bull becoming the biggest sponsor in sports. A company that sells a banned substance can't be a sponsor.

Just got my 23andme data back, I am also CC. On one level, not surprising in that I've never actually found that much benefit in my training from caffeine, I just always have taken it because it's supposed to help! On a different level, I suffer no ill consequences from caffeine consumption that I'm aware. I guess I'll start cutting back and see what happens.

Edit: I did just go back and look at the blurb from the pubmed article that was linked in the OP. They had 100 cyclists, which isn't a small number, but the number of cyclists that have the CC variant, which is relatively uncommon, and took 4mg caffeine must have been quite small and the performance result seen for CC could have easily been caused by one bombed performance.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

ok - yes the small sample of CC makes sense. What confuses me a bit is that I definitely (without a doubt) see a performance increase from caffeine. It would be interesting to know what length of time they left between ingestion of the caffeine and the cycling test. For me to see a benefit, I'd need to take it about 90 mins before the test.

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |